Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcis

Effect of counterions on surface and foaming properties of dodecyl sulfate

Samir Pandey, Rahul P. Bagwe, and Dinesh O. Shah ∗
Center for Surface Science and Engineering, NSF-Engineering Research Center for Particle Science and Technology,
Departments of Chemical Engineering and Anesthesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Received 14 November 2002; accepted 13 June 2003

Abstract
The influence of counterions of surfactant on interfacial properties is studied by measuring foamability, foam stability, equilibrium and
dynamic surface tension, and surface viscosity. The surfactant chosen is anionic dodecyl sulfate with various counterions, Li+ , Na+ , Cs+ ,
and Mg++ . Surface tension measurements show a decrease in the following order: LiDS > NaDS > CsDS > Mg(DS)2 . Foamability done
using shaking method shows similar order as surface tension, i.e., LiDS > NaDS > CsDS > Mg(DS)2 . This has been explained in terms
of the differences in micellar stability and diffusion of monomers. This is further confirmed by our dynamic surface tension results, which
show the same order as equilibrium surface tension (i.e., LiDS > NaDS > CsDS > Mg(DS)2 ) at low bubble frequencies but the order is
LiDS > NaDS = Mg(DS)2 > CsDS at high bubble frequencies. Foam stability measurements were done at concentrations below and above
cmc to elucidate the role of micelles. It was found that there is no significant change in foam stability when counterions are changed for
surfactant concentration values below the cmc, but at concentration above cmc the foam stability of CsDS and Mg(DS)2 are much greater
than LiDS and NaDS indicating presence of stable micelles are essential to high foam stabilities. Surface viscosity measurements correlated
well with the foam stability trends and gave the following order LiDS < NaDS < CsDS  Mg(DS)2 , indicating that the molecules of CsDS
and Mg(DS)2 are tightly packed at the air/water interface.
 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Mg(DS)2 are reported by Mukerjee [2] to be 8.92, 8.32, 6.09,

Foamability and foam stability are relevant properties for
many industrial applications such as mineral flotation, food
processing, foam fractionation, processing of textiles, per-
sonal care products, enhanced oil recovery, and fire fighting.
The surfactant counterion strongly influences the critical mi-
celle concentration (cmc), micellar catalysis, micelle size,
and emulsion size as observed by various researchers [1–3].
The cmc in an aqueous solution is influenced by the de-
gree of binding of counterions to the micelle. For aqueous
systems, the increased binding of the counterions to the sur-
factant causes a decrease in the cmc and an increase in the
aggregation number [2]. The extent of binding of the coun-
terion increases with an increase in the polarizability and
valence of counterions and decrease with an increase in its
hydrated radius [4]. Thus, in aqueous solution, for the an-
ionic dodecyl sulfates, the cmc decreases [2] in the order
Li+ > Na+ > Cs+ . The cmc of LiDS, NaDS, CsDS, and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shah@che.ufl.edu (D.O. Shah).
0021-9797/$ – see front matter  2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2003.06.001
0.88 mM, respectively, at 25 ◦ C. Missel et al. [5] have re-
ported that the micellar size is in the order Rh (CsDS) >
Rh (NaDS) > Rh (LiDS) at a given ionic strength, detergent
concentration, and temperature. Also, the ionized counteri-
ons perturb the local ordering or structure of water mole-
cules around the counterions [6]. Several water molecules
are bound to counterions due to ion–dipole interaction be-
tween counterions and water molecules. The counterion size
follows the order Li+ < Na+ < Cs+ but the hydrated coun-
terparts show the reverse trend due to the greater hydration
of a lithium ion compared to a sodium or cesium ion [6]. The
repulsive force between hydrated ions appears to increase [6]
in the order Cs+ –Cs+ < K+ –K+ < Na+ –Na+ < Li+ –Li+
(rather than the opposite, as would be expected from the non-
hydrated ion radii of the ions). Therefore, the effectiveness
of monovalent cations as coagulants decreases according to
the so-called lyotropic series [7], viz., Cs+ > K+ > Na+
> Li+ . The surface tension of surfactant solutions depends
on the number of surfactant molecules per unit area at the
surface. For a given surfactant, the greater concentration of
surfactant molecules at the surface results in the lower sur-
face tension.
 S. Pandey et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166
Many physical factors are involved in control of foam-
ability and foam stability. While foamability depends on
surface tension (equilibrium or dynamic) and cmc, the foam
stability is determined by bulk and surface viscosities, the
Marangoni effect, disjoining pressure and hydrophobic in-
teraction [8–11].
Patist et al. [12] have shown that by using long chain al-
cohols, the stability of sodium dodecyl sulfate micelles can
be tailored to control the dynamic surface tensions achieved
and hence the foamabilities. Chattopadhyay et al. [14] re-
ported that the surface viscosity of a monolayer of surfactant,
which is a good indicator of foam stability, is sensitive to
the concentration and nature of salt. They observed increase
in surface viscosity with increase in NaCl concentration in
contrast to a decrease in surface viscosity with increase in
NH4 NO3 concentration. The present paper investigates the
effect of counterions such as Li+ , Na+ , Cs+ , and Mg++ of
dodecyl sulfate on interfacial properties in relation to foam-
ing.
2. Experimental procedure
Lithium dodecyl sulfate (99% purity) is purchased from
Acros (Orlando, FL), sodium dodecyl sulfate (99% pu-
rity) from Sigma Chemical Company (St. Louis, MO), and
magnesium dodecyl sulfate (98% purity) from Pfaltz and
Bauer (Waterbury, CT). Cesium dodecyl sulfate is prepared
in our laboratory with the same procedure as shown by
Kim et al. [3]. Chlorosulfonic acid (Aldrich, Milwaukee,
WI, 553.5 mM) is added to dodecanol drop by drop with
vigorous mixing at 25 ◦ C under a nitrogen atmosphere.
The sulfation reaction is performed very slowly (40 min
and cooled with ice) since the sulfation process is highly
exothermic. After the sulfation process, nitrogen gas is
used to purge the reaction mixture to remove HCl pro-
duced during the reaction. Aqueous CsOH solution (Aldrich,
50.0 wt%) is added to the reaction mixture in a 1:1 mo-
lar ratio to neutralize the acid. The CsDS is recrystal-
lized three times with distilled water, keeping the solution
at 5 ◦ C.
Foamability measurements are carried out by shaking at
surfactant concentration 50 mM, where 10 ml of the sur-
factant solution is vigorously shaken 10 times by hand in
a 100-ml graduated cylinder and the volume of the foam is
recorded immediately after shaking. Each solution is tested
at least five times and the reproducibility is about ±5 ml.
For foam stability measurements, the solutions are foa-
med to the same height (13 cm) by slowly injecting air
(100 cm3 /min) through a fine capillary (diameter 1 mm)
into 25 ml of surfactant solution contained in a quartz col-
umn (diameter 3.5 cm, height 80 cm). The time for collapse
of the foam to half the initial height is then recorded. Sur-
factant concentration of 1 mM is chosen for studies below
cmc while concentrations of 25 and 50 mM are chosen for
studies above cmc (cmc ≈ 1–8 mM depending on the coun-
161
terion). Appropriate caution (a long funnel that reached the
bottom is used to pour the solution) is taken in order to keep
the walls dry and to avoid any initial foam formation due to
splashing.
The deep-channel surface viscometer [13] is used to mea-
sure the surface viscosity of each solution. Two concentric
cylinders form the deep channel of the viscometer. The walls
of this channel are stationary, while the lower cup moves at
a constant angular velocity. To measure the centerline veloc-
ity of the air/water (surfactant solution) interface, a small
Teflon particle is placed on the surface and the time for
that particle to make one revolution is recorded as an av-
erage from five such revolutions by visual observation. With
this value, the surface viscosity can be determined using the
equation [14]


ε=
ηy0 8Vb
−1 , (1)
π πV eπD
where ε is the surface viscosity, η the bulk viscosity of
the solution, y0 the channel width, Vb the plate rotational
speed, V the centerline velocity of the air/water interface,
and D the ratio of depth to width of the liquid channel.
Equilibrium surface tensions are measured from freshly
prepared solutions by the Wilhelmy plate method [15]. Be-
fore each measurement, the platinum plate is cleaned by
heating it to a red/orange color with a Bunsen burner.
Dynamic surface tension is measured by a similar method
as reported in our previous studies [12]. Quantitative esti-
mates of dynamic surface tension of solutions are taken by
forcing air into the solutions through a gauge 22 steel needle
while measuring the pressure changes as the bubbles are pro-
duced using a fast (1-ms) transducer (Omega Instruments) in
the maximum bubble pressure instrument [16,17]. To show
the importance of micellar break up in the dynamic surface
tension measurement a dimensionless parameter θ is intro-
duced [12],
θ = (γd − γeq )/(γw − γeq ), (2)
where γd is the dynamic surface tension, γeq is the equi-
librium surface tension measured by the Wilhelmy plate
method, and γw is the surface tension of pure water at 25 ◦ C.
The value of θ = 0 (or γd = γeq ) indicates that the surfactant
adsorption under dynamic condition is the same as that under
equilibrium conditions and the micelles are labile as well as
the monomers are diffusing fast, whereas θ = 1 (γd = γw )
indicates no surfactant is present at the interface under the
dynamic conditions existing during the bubbling process im-
plying either the presence of relatively stable micelles or
monomers with high characteristic diffusion time.
3. Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows the equilibrium surface tension values
for 50 mM surfactant solutions having different counterions.
162 S. Pandey et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166

Table 1
Physical properties and dimensionless dynamic surface tension (θ ) of dif-
ferent counterions of dodecyl sulfate
Ion Ionic Hydrated Area per θ parameter
radius (Å) radius (Å) molecule
Li+ 0.60 3.82 61 0.138
Na+ 0.95 3.58 51.5 0.131
Cs+ 1.69 3.29 44.5 0.202
Mg++ 0.65 4.28 38.7 0.353

of Mg(DS)2 , the larger separation of positive and nega-

tive center [Mg++ : ionic radius, 0.066 nm; hydrated radius,
0.428 nm] is countered to some extent because of the biva-
lency of the cation. This attractive force between a divalent
Fig. 1. Surface tension as a function of counterion of surfactant, dodecyl cation and two surfactant molecules probably partially dehy-
sulfate, at 50 mM. drates the Mg2+ ions and hence causes the closest molecular
packing at the interface. This is also evident from area per
molecule values obtained from Gibbs adsorption equation,
in Table 1, where DS− Mg++
occupies the least area followed
by DS−
Cs+
, DS−
Na+
, and DS−
Li+
.

3.1. Foamability measurements

Foamability has been studied using shaking method. In

this method foam is produced quickly by rapid shaking of
cylinder causing a sudden expansion of interfacial area. Si-
multaneously, due to vigorous shaking, there is a destruction
of foam too. Assuming similar bubble size (or bubble size
distribution), the foamability experiments (Fig. 3) yielded
trends contrary to those as expected from Eq. (3) [19] re-
lating work done in producing foam to interfacial area,
Fig. 2. Effect of counterions on molecular packing of dodecyl sulfate at the
air/water interface. Area per molecule (Am ): ALi
+ Na+ > ACs+ > W = γ A, (3)
m > Am m
Mg2+
Am . where W is the work done, γ is the surface tension at the
air/water interface, and A is the change in interfacial area
Surface tension is related to the number of surfactant mole- (i.e., the systems with smaller surface tensions, instead of
cules per unit area adsorbed at the air/water interface. The producing larger interfacial areas, produce smaller interfa-
surface tension decreases with increasing surface concentra- cial areas).
tion [4]. Figure 1 shows that the surface tension decreases as
follows: lithium dodecyl sulfate (LiDS) > sodium dodecyl
sulfate (NaDS) > cesium dodecyl sulfate (CsDS) > mag-
nesium dodecyl sulfate (Mg(DS)2). This can be explained
by considering the molecular arrangement at the interface
shown in Fig. 2. As one goes down the first group of the
periodic table from Li+ to Cs+ , the ionic radius increases
from Li (0.068 nm) to Na (0.095 nm) to Cs (0.169 nm),
while the hydrated radius changes as follows: Li (0.38 nm),
Na (0.36 nm), Cs (0.33 nm) [6,18]. Thus the positive cen-
ter (Li+ ) in LiDS is at a larger distance from the negative
center (DS− ) than in the case of CsDS, resulting in a higher
coulombic repulsion between the adjacent sulfate ions in a
LiDS monolayer than in a CsDS monolayer. This leads to
closer molecular packing and a higher surface concentra-
tion of surfactant molecules at the interface in the case of Fig. 3. Foamability (by shaking method) as a function of counterion of sur-
CsDS than for the LiDS adsorbed monolayer. In the case factant dodecyl sulfate at 50 mM concentration.
 S. Pandey et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of adsorption of surfactant on the newly
created air/water interface during foam generation. In a thin liquid film,
more stable micelles → less monomer flux → lower foamability.
This can be explained on the basis of competitive time
scales for interfacial area expansion, the diffusional transport
of surfactant monomers, and the ability of micelles to break
up in order to provide monomer flux necessary to stabilize
the new air/water interface as shown in Fig. 4. Very stable
micelles cannot break up fast enough to augment the flux
of monomers necessary to stabilize the new air/water inter-
face resulting in higher dynamic surface tension and hence
low foamabilities. Simple calculations on lines similar to Oh
et al. [20], show that for surfactant with first group counte-
rions (Li+ , Na+ , and Cs+ ), the characteristic diffusion time
for surfactant monomers is on the order of 10−4 s, while
for surfactant with Mg++ as counterion, it is on the order
of 10−2 s because of its low cmc as well as least area per
molecule at the air/water interface. The characteristic dif-
fusion time for micelles will be approximately an order of
magnitude larger because of the slower diffusion (coefficient
of diffusion ∝ Mw−1 ) of the aggregates. So apparently the
breakup of micelles should be a rate-limiting step in the sup-
ply of monomers to the new air/water interface for the cases
of LiDS, NaDS, and CsDS, while for Mg(DS)2, the resis-
tance should largely come from the diffusion of monomers.
From the results in Fig. 3, this further means that the low
interfacial area generated in case of CsDS is due to the resis-
tance from micellar stability. For LiDS and NaDS surfactant
systems, the micelles appear to be relatively unstable, thus
providing all the monomer flux that is required to stabilize
the interfacial area.
This is consistent with the dynamic surface tension mea-
surements (Fig. 5). Here, at low flow rates and thus higher
bubble lifetimes (∼1 s), the order for the surface tensions is
similar to the order for equilibrium surface tensions with dif-
ferent counterions. Apparently, under these conditions, there
is no resistance to monomer flux required to stabilize the
newly formed bubbles from either the micellar stability or
from the diffusion of the monomers. Thus, the bubbles are
formed under equilibrium conditions. At higher flow rates
and thus smaller bubble lifetimes (∼50 ms), while there is
an increase in the surface tension of surfactants as compared
to that at low flow rates, the change is higher in magnitude
for CsDS or Mg(DS)2 than for LiDS or NaDS, suggesting a
larger resistance to monomer flux for CsDS and Mg(DS)2.
163
Fig. 5. Dynamic surface tension as a function of counterion of surfactant
at 50 mM concentration and 25 ◦ C.
As discussed before, this is probably due to stable micelles
in the case of CsDS and larger characteristic diffusion times
in the case of Mg(DS)2. Available literature data [21] on
relaxation times (τ2 ) for NaDS and CsDS systems at sur-
factant concentration 50 mM (NaDS: τ2 = 1 ms, CsDS:
τ2 = 3000 ms) further confirms this interpretation.
A more meaningful way to represent the dynamic surface
tension might be using the θ parameter as it normalizes the
dynamic surface activity (irrespective of the mechanisms)
with respect to the equilibrium surface activity (see Eq. (2)).
Table 1 shows the θ parameter values at a bubble life time
of 50 ms. The θ parameter values are lower and similar
for LiDS and NaDS while they are higher for CsDS and
Mg(DS)2 suggesting a higher dynamic surface activity for
LiDS or NaDS than for CsDS or Mg(DS)2 correlating well
with the foamability behavior.
3.2. Foam stability measurements
Foam stability can be influenced by two independent fac-
tors: (1) molecular packing in adsorbed surfactant film and
hence surface viscosity of the film at the air/water inter-
face [22] and (2) layering or structuring of micelles within
the bulk water in foam lamellae [12,25–27]. In order to de-
lineate the effect of presence of micellar structuring, the sur-
factant systems with different counterions are studied sys-
tematically below and above the cmc concentration values.
Figure 6 shows the foam stability as a function of counte-
rions at a surfactant concentration of 1 mM. The concentra-
tion of 1 mM, which is either close to or below cmc concen-
tration, is chosen to ensure little or no presence of micelles in
foam lamellae. Here, one sees that the foam stabilities grad-
ually increase from 10 min for LiDS to 30 min for Mg(DS)2 .
Foam stability differences are usually explained in terms of
the differences in the water drainage rate from the foam
lamellae which in itself is influenced by mechanisms such as
(i) bulk viscosity, (ii) fluidity of the film, and (iii) Marangoni
stabilization mechanism [22] because of the rapid adsorp-
tion of surfactants. Mechanism (i) can easily be discounted
164 S. Pandey et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166
Fig. 6. Foam stability of surfactant dodecyl sulfate with different counteri-
ons below critical micellar concentration.
because of the similar bulk viscosities of all four solutions
containing different counterions. Mechanism (iii) is also not
operative because then a two-orders-of-magnitude smaller
adsorption for Mg(DS)2 would have resulted in a signifi-
cantly more stable foam for Mg(DS)2 than for LiDS, NaDS,
or CsDS, where a quicker monomer adsorption would op-
pose the Marangoni stabilization mechanism, thus promot-
ing the momentary stretch of foam lamella, weakening it
further. Thus one can conclude that it is the fluidity of the
film that is controlling the drainage rate at this concentra-
tion. Apparently, with an increase in crowding of surfactant
monomers at the interface, as one changes the counterion
from Li+ to Mg++ , the adsorbed film is becoming more
rigid (discussed later in Fig. 9), thus retarding the flow of
water.
Figure 7 shows the foam stability as a function of coun-
terions at a surfactant concentration of 25 mM. At this
concentration, micelles are present in the foam film. Here,
it can be observed that foam stabilities are low for LiDS
(20 min) and NaDS (60 min) surfactant system, while for
CsDS and Mg(DS)2 surfactant system, the foam stabilities
are unusually high (900 min, 1200 min). This suggests an
abrupt change in micellar properties (either their number
concentration or their stabilities) for the CsDS and Mg(DS)2
surfactant systems in comparison to the LiDS and NaDS sur-
factant systems. Except for the widely studied NaDS system,
the number concentrations of the micelles cannot be reliably
determined because of the unavailability of the aggregation
numbers for these surfactant systems. Though one can cal-
culate some bounds for micellar number concentrations as-
suming the same aggregation number as that of NaDS. The
aggregation number for NaDS is reported to be 64 [23]. For
the surfactants at two extremes (i.e., LiDS and Mg(DS)2), at
25 mM concentration, the number concentration of micelles
is 1.51 × 1020 and 2.26 × 1020 , respectively. These number
concentrations come closer if one assumes that the packing
in micelles will behave in a way similar to that observed
at the air/water interface (i.e., the aggregation number for
LiDS should be smaller than 64 and for Mg(DS)2 it should
Fig. 7. Foam stability of surfactant dodecyl sulfate with different counteri-
ons above critical micelle concentration.
be greater than 64). This is not an unreasonable assump-
tion as such an analogy has been found to be true for mixed
systems of NaDS with cationic surfactants of varying chain
lengths [24]. Thus the number concentration of micelles is
not very different for surfactants with different counterions
and the differences in the foam stabilities can be ascribed to
the differences in micellar stabilities. From the foamability
results shown before (Fig. 3), it is known that the micelles
of LiDS and NaDS are unstable in comparison to the mi-
celles of CsDS. Hence one can infer (i) the micellar stability
of Mg(DS)2 is very high and (ii) the micellar stability pre-
dominantly determines the foam stability (i.e., the higher the
micellar stability, the higher is the foam stability).
These issues of structure imparting stability to colloids
have been addressed by Wasan and co-workers [25–29], who
have shown that polystyrene latices, suspensions of silica
particles, and micelles all tend to form ordered or layered
colloidal structures in the thin film. One of their results [25]
on stepwise film thinning at 30 mM and 100 mM NaDS
concentration shows that the time taken for removal of the
penultimate micellar layer, before forming a stable film, is
highly surfactant-concentration-dependent (i.e., the time re-
quired is ∼3 min at 30 mM in comparison to ∼10 min
at 100 mM). The micellar stability of NaDS [30] (1 ms at
25 mM and 100 ms at 100 mM) correlates well with this
draining behavior. This observation suggests that it is not just
sufficient to have micelles; the micelles must have greater
stability to cause enhanced foam stability.
Figure 8 shows the foam stability experiments at 50 mM
surfactant concentration. A comparison with Fig. 7 shows
that while the foam stabilities for LiDS and NaDS do not
change much; the foam stabilities increase considerably for
CsDS and Mg(DS)2. Thus, one can conclude that the foam
stabilities can only be enhanced by packing micelles of high
stability in the foam lamellae.
In most of our foam stability experiments, lower drainage
rates appear to be the requirement for having high foam
stabilities. However, the drainage rate measurements (from
shaking method) did not correlate well with the foam stabil-
 S. Pandey et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166
Fig. 8. Foam stability of surfactant dodecyl sulfate with different counteri-
ons above critical micellar concentration.
Fig. 9. Dimensionless surface viscosity measurements as a function of coun-
terion of surfactant at concentration 50 mM and 25 ◦ C.
ities. For instance, at surfactant concentration 50 mM, LiDS
was found to have a significantly lower drainage rate as com-
pared to NaDS, which is contrary to what is expected from
the foam stabilities. Presumably, it is not the bulk drainage
but the small residual water drainage from the foam lamel-
lae that can explain the foam stabilities. This phenomenon
is also seen in the stepwise thinning of the films, where
the majority of the micellar layers drain out quickly. It is
only towards the end that one observes the differences in
the draining behavior as a function of surfactant concentra-
tion [25].
Another useful parameter that correlates well with the
foam stabilities is the surface viscosity. The increased stabil-
ity of foam lamellae with surface viscosity has been shown
earlier by various researchers [31–33]. Figure 9 shows the
dimensionless surface viscosity measurements for surfactant
concentration 50 mM with different counterions. Here, one
observes low surface viscosities for LiDS and NaDS, reason-
ably high surface viscosities for CsDS, and ultrahigh surface
viscosities for Mg(DS)2, in good correlation to the foam sta-
bilities shown in Fig. 8. Apparently, the increased binding of
165
Fig. 10. Diagram showing effect of counterions on packing of surfactant
molecule at air/water interface.
counterions in CsDS and Mg(DS)2 decreases the repulsion
between adjacent surfactant head groups, causing a more
tightly packed film of higher surface viscosity.
Summarily, in the case of cesium and magnesium dodecyl
sulfates there is a good contribution to foam stability from
structuring effect of micelles while in case of lithium and
sodium dodecyl sulfate because of the faster micellar relax-
ation times, the structural contribution is minimal. Moreover
the closer packing of monomers at the air/water interface
(Fig. 10) causes higher surface viscosities for cesium and
magnesium dodecyl sulfates, which also assists in slowing
down the rate of drainage. It might be interesting to study
stepwise thinning of film with these surfactants having dif-
ferent counterions. Possibly, one would observe that films
with CsDS or Mg(DS)2 systems will squeeze out the micel-
lar layer lot slowly as compared to LiDS or NaDS systems.
4. Conclusions
From the resulted reported in this paper, it can be con-
cluded that
(1) Surface activity of dodecyl sulfate having different
counterions is in the order Li < Na < Cs < Mg, while
the area per molecule is in the reverse order.
(2) Foamability by shaking method is determined by mi-
cellar stability for LiDS, NaDS, and CsDS, while for
Mg(DS)2 it is determined by the diffusion of monomers
to the air/water interface due to the lower cmc for
Mg(DS)2 .
(3) Foam stability can be controlled to a certain extent by
the molecular packing in the adsorbed film and to a sig-
nificantly larger extent by the presence of stable micelles
in foam lamellae. The higher the micellar stability, the
greater is the foam stability.
(4) The stabilities of the micelles appear to be in the follow-
ing order: LiDS ∼ NaDS < CsDS  Mg(DS)2 .
(5) The surface viscosity is found to be in the order LiDS
< NaDS < CsDS  Mg(DS)2 due to the increase in
molecular packing at the air/water interface.
166 S. Pandey et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 267 (2003) 160–166
(6) Dynamic surface tension at low bubble frequencies
shows a trend similar to that for equilibrium surface ten-
sion, whereas at higher bubble frequencies, the trend is
LiDS > NaDS > CsDS < Mg(DS)2 .
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to express their thanks and apprecia-
tion to the National Science Foundation (Grant NSF-CPE
8005851) and the NSF-ERC Research Center for Particle
Science and Technology (Grant EEC 94-02989).
References
[1] S.G. Oh, D.O. Shah, J. Phys. Chem. 97 (1993) 284–286.
[2] P. Mukerjee, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1 (1967) 24.
[3] D.H. Kim, S.G. Oh, C.G. Cho, J. Colloid Polymer Sci. 279 (2001)
39–45.
[4] M.J. Rosen, Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, Wiley, New York,
1978.
[5] P.J. Missel, N.A. Mazer, M.C. Carey, G.B. Benedek, J. Phys.
Chem. 93 (26) (1989) 8354–8366.
[6] J.N. Israelachvilli, Intermolecular and Surface Force, Academic Press,
New York, 1992, Chapter 4.
[7] P.C. Hiemenz, Principles of Colloid and Surface Chemistry, Dekker,
New York, 1977.
[8] A.K. Malhotra, D.T. Wasan, in: I.B. Ivanov (Ed.), Thin Liquid Films—
Fundamentals and Applications, Dekker, New York, 1988, Chapter 12.
[9] R.J. Pugh, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 64 (1996) 67.
[10] R. Aveyard, J.H. Clint, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 1 (1996) 764.
[11] I.B. Ivanov, P.A. Krachevsky, Colloids Surf. A 128 (1997) 155.
[12] A. Patist, T. Axleberd, D.O. Shah, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 208 (1998)
259–265.
[13] R.J. Mannheim, R.S. Schechte, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 32 (2) (1970)
195.
[14] A.K. Chattopadhyay, L. Ghaicha, S.G. Oh, D.O. Shah, J. Phys.
Chem. 96 (1992) 6509–6513.
[15] L.I. Osipow, Surface Chemistry: Theory and Industrial Applications,
Krieger, Huntington, NY, 1977, pp. 20–21.
[16] V.B. Fainerman, R. Miller, P. Joos, J. Colloid Polymer Sci. 272 (6)
(1994) 731–739.
[17] R.L. Bendure, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 35 (2) (1971) 238.
[18] F.A. Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 4th ed.,
Wiley, New York, 1983.
[19] A.W. Adamson, Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, Wiley, New York,
1990, Chapter 2.
[20] S.G. Oh, AIChE 38 (1) (1992) 149.
[21] M. Kahlweit, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 90 (1) (1982) 92–99.
[22] B. Jonsson, B. Lindman, K. Holmberg, B. Kronberg, Surfactants and
Polymers in Aqueous Solution, Wiley, New York, 1998.
[23] N.J. Turro, A. Yekta, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 100 (18) (1978) 5951.
[24] A. Patist, V. Chhabra, R. Pagidipati, R. Shah, D.O. Shah, Langmuir 13
(1997) 432–434.
[25] A.D. Nikolov, D.T. Wasan, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 133 (1) (1989)
1–12.
[26] A.D. Nikolov, D.T. Wasan, Langmuir 8 (1992) 2985–2994.
[27] D.T. Wasan, A.D. Nikolov, P.A. Kralchevsky, I.B. Ivanov, Colloids
Surf. A 67 (1992) 139.
[28] P.A. Kralchevsky, A.D. Nikolov, D.T. Wasan, I.B. Ivanov, Langmuir 6
(1990) 1180.
[29] A.D. Nikolov, D.T. Wasan, N.D. Denkov, P.A. Kralchevsky, I.B.
Ivanov, Prog. Coll. Polym. Sci. 82 (1990) 87.
[30] S.G. Oh, D.O. Shah, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 70 (7) (1993) 673–678.
[31] J.T. Davies, E.K. Rideal, Interfacial Phenomena, 2nd ed., Academic
Press, New York, 1963.
[32] A.G. Brown, W.C. Thuman, J.W. McBain, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 8
(1953) 491.
[33] D.O. Shah, N.F. Djabbarab, D.T. Wasan, J. Colloid Polymer Sci. 276
(1978) 1002.